The GOP Gun Apologists Seem To Believe The Massacres Of The Past Are Irrelevant.

Based on their logic the loss of life is just "collateral" damage and the right to bare arms trumps any effort to come up with reasonable and sensible controls that might stop such loss of life in the future.

The latest talking point is that everyone must be armed. Cannot believe that the debate has gone so deep into the woods.

1. Blame the media

the main stream media in this country has forced every policy debate into a 30 second sound bite- what do you expect?

But the question I always have what constitutes "reasonable and sensible"? Everyone has their own definition, with some people saying no controls is reasonable and others advocating UK/Australian type laws. Here are my few pointers to finding what I believe could be a "reasonable" solution. I have seperated into pro-gun and pro-control.

These are a few things the pro-gun side needs to realize
-background checks won't lead to confiscation
-it is too easy for prohibited people to get guns
-Arming someone is not always the answer
-The "protection from tryanny" arguement is silly
-there should be a limit on magazine capacity- you reach a point when owning a magazine that can carry x number of bullets becomes silly
-requiring training and proficiency for carry licenses is not taking away your rights.
-not every country that instituted strict laws so their crime increase

These are a few things the pro-control side needs to realize
-the 2nd amendment does exist
-owning weapons for self defense is legitimate
-owning a firearm is never going to be an extremely prohibitive process
-weapons with no sporting purpose- such as weapons carried by police (shotguns, handguns, rifles) should be allowed for citizens. There might be certain types that can be banned but guns that are generally good for defense should be allowed even if they have no sporting purpose
-Assault weapon bans are silly
-magazine capacity of 10 rounds is unreasonable
-discretionary carry licensing should be repealed
-Many countries which are used an examples for gun control have always had a significantly lower homicide rate than the U.S.- even when such laws were comprable.

I think if both sides considered some of these points we could reach a compromise.

My personal policy reccomendations are as follows
-Universal Background checks on all sales except if they are intra-family. If person has valid CCW license they are exempt from this requirement
-Universal 1 handgun a month law. If an individual has a Federal C&R collectors license they are exempt from this.
-Magazine restriction at 20 rounds.
-Universal "shall issue" concealed carry license. Since licenses are issued on a state level this would be sort of an federal "Endorsement". So in order for your license to be considered valid in all states it would need to meet such and such requirements (certain level of training, proficiency, etc...).
-Universal Safe storage law that would still allow someone to keep a loaded firearm ready for home defense- such a law could be modeled such that it requires you lock up your weapon when you leave your home.

Would these stop mass murders and all gun crimes? No, but I think it would make a decent dent. A significant amount of our crime weapons come from straw purchasers and theft, which would be addressed in my proposals.

2. The massacres of the past ARE irrelevant. It's the ones that are pending that matter.

That is in no way meant to belittle the losses that were suffered from said past massacres. But humans seldom learn from the past and as has famously been said that we are doomed to repeat it.

We can't change the past, but if we are willing, we can alter the future at least to some degree. But I am a bit confused by the current efforts for an assault weapons ban in Congress. The lists of banned and protected weapons just seem arbitrary and there's way too much overlap in capabilities. As a disclaimer, I own guns, including semi handguns, but I can't see the logic in their choices for the models on the two lists.

The Ruger Mini-14 .223 is a perfect example. The fixed stock is protected but the folding stock is banned. Otherwise it is, as best I can tell, exactly the same gun except for a less than three inch length difference. Perhaps I just need to read more about them. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think so. It just looks like a cosmetic political move that won't do a damn thing.

And from what I've read, the legislation does nothing about aftermarket modifications like the bump action stock kit for the AR-15 that essentially makes it fully automatic with just 8 lbs of pull force on the grip. A rifle with a detachable magazine that can take a 30+ round clip isn't held back by a ban on clips over 10 rounds since there are countless large-capacity clips out there already and readily available. It will only have teeth if they order a change in the interface (try plugging an old 9-pin serial mouse into a USB port).

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any serious effort to change things. The NRA isn't as powerful as it once was, but Congress is still shitting their collective pants out of fear of the group.

What really matters is what we do going forward, using the past as rationale and for guidance. Children should not have to grow up in fear of their lives being swept away by a deranged individual with military grade firepower. Granted, the majority of homocides are from handguns and usually involve less than three shots, but the ones that wipe out large numbers of random individuals, and children in particular, are primarily from assault weapons, semi or fully automatic isn't relevant. They both fire so quickly that there's no time to react.

No child should be deprived a future because of such weaponry. The NRA can go to HELL and I would buy the tickets to send them there if they hadn't already purchased their own.

I'm sorry to rant about it, but I just can't fathom why we as a society allow this madness to continue. Yes, we can do something about it. Yes, we can protect our children. The insanity is the lack of action.

4. The Post I Put Up Was About A GOP Rep In Colorado Objecting To The Pending Gun Legislation That Will

most likely become law in Colorado. It is part of the GOP talking points here. Her little mantra was that Aurora and Columbine were not relevant to the proposed laws because they are past history. The protest was that nothing needed to be done. Using the past as a reason to pass these new laws was not appropriate. And by further logic, besides the new laws would not prevent any massacres because they are likely to happen anyway.

The GOP line here is that we need to allow conceal and carry. Allow as many citizens to carry a weapon anywhere they desire. The further logic is that unknown armed citizens would deter massacres because a perpetrator would not know who might shoot back. Yada, yada, yada.

As a matter of fact in a recent town hall the GOP sent in a couple of their little accolites, one a young war vet who was saying that essentially anyone who wants to be armed should be allowed to carry. He was a minority conservative young man. He was the kind of naive young person who will carry their water for them. Not to mention the fact that the GOP could care less about vets except as props.

The GOP is saying that you cannot stop massacres that we should allow a shoot out or something like that. In their view protecting the 2nd amendment is more important than protecting the public.

5. There's a simple response to that. More guns lead to more deaths.

There were armed guards in the school at Columbine. That's not the only place armed citizens/guards were present when a shooting occurred. The response time can't compete with a semi-auto. People are going to die.

More guns just means more bullets. It doesn't mean more safety for anyone. And, again as a gun owner, I really wish Congress would tell the NRA to fuck off and then pass some solid restrictions on military-style weaponry. You can't own a rocket launcher, Abrahms tank, mortar, missile launcher, and other such "you only need it in the military" type weapons. There is a concept called "reasonable restrictions" that is sadly long-overdue for a rewrite.

The "I use it to hunt" argument is utter bullshit. People make clean kills with a bow and arrow. If you can't take out a critter with a single shot from a rifle, you don't belong in the woods to begin with. Hell, I can shoot well enough to take one out from 100 yards. I just happen to not eat meat. But I'm damn good with a rifle. Semi-auto rifles are not for hunting unless your prey is humans. Tree stands are wimpy too. That's not hunting. That's lurking.